Opponents of the Salvation Army’s proposed “mega-shelter” on Montreal Road say they’re prepared to take their fight to the Ontario Municipal Board, if the project gets the green light in a council vote Wednesday.

Drew Dobson, head of the group SOS Vanier, whose members came out in numbers through three days of impassioned public hearings on the proposal, said he believes they have a “winnable case.”

The proposal calls for a 9,600-square-metre, 350-bed facility to be constructed at 333 Montreal Road in Vanier, with a shelter, day programs, medical care, addiction services and administrative space.

A large contingent of Vanier residents voiced their opposition to the proposal.

Related

The dozens who spoke before the planning committee this week complained about the large scale of the project, the lack of parking, issues with traffic congestion and cited the city’s own zoning regulations against housing shelters on main streets.

After months of rancorous debate and three long days of discussion at city hall, the planning committee approved the charity’s proposal with a 6-3 vote on Friday, with councillors Tobi Nussbaum, Jeff Leiper and Riley Brockington casting the dissenting votes.

“It was an exhausting week,” Dobson said Saturday. “It wasn’t an unexpected result, but nonetheless shocking when you’re emotionally and physically drained.”

Dobson said he was frustrated that councillors who voted and spoke in favour of the proposal “seemed to use non-planning rationale,” he said.

“They were the ones saying the Salvation Army does good work, and the homeless need help and the city needs to expand those services — and those were the things the chair (Coun. Jan Harder) said were off the table and shouldn’t be discussed or considered.

“It was frustrating because I think some committee votes (in favour of the proposal) may have been on the basis of their personal opinions about the Salvation Army and the good work they do with the homeless, rather than being judged just as a planning application.

“And that was our fear, because we felt we have a very strong case on the planning application.”

Two councillors who voted “no” to the controversial plan, meanwhile, said they are “disappointed” by the way the file was handled and the charity’s “failure to engage the community.”

Nussbaum said Saturday in a lengthy statement on Twitter he wasn’t convinced as to why the facility should be exempt from existing planning rules that don’t permit shelters on traditional main streets.

“I am disappointed that such an important file — representing potentially the largest single investment in the city’s social sector of which I am aware — came down to a binary vote on land-use planning grounds,” he said.

Assuming council OKs the proposal, Nussbaum said he hopes the charity takes into consideration the voices of the “many passionate, engaged experts and community members to improve this proposal,” and called for a plan “more in line” with the objective of ending homelessness.

In a statement, Leiper said he took exception to the proposal because it runs counter to the city’s official plan on traditional mainstreets, and “too little heed was paid to how the development could contribute positively to the evolution of Vanier in a big-picture way.”

By approving it, he said, “We have failed to capitalize on an opportunity to move toward a more sustainable way to address homelessness and housing.”

Leiper added the charity “failed to engage the community” on the proposal.

“Even among those councillors voting to approve the development, there was strong remonstrance at how the process unfolded.”

The political hot potato is now passed to city council, which will have the final say Wednesday.

Dobson and SOS Vanier have retained the legal services of Michael Polowin, a partner with Gowling WLG who specializes in municipal and real property law.

“From my perspective,” Dobson said, “if we don’t win that council vote, as long as (Polowin) thinks we have a case, then we’ll be appealing to the OMB.

“But we still have a council vote coming up. We’ve looked down the road, but the first step is going to be in council on Wednesday, and we will be there.

“We’ll be respectful and we’ll watch the proceedings, and we will meet after the vote and make a determination on how to proceed.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.